Abteilung Aquatische Ökologie

array(2 items)
   publications => '33647,17985,15911' (17 chars)
   libraryUrl => '' (0 chars)

array(3 items)
   0 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=33647, pid=124)
      originalId => protected33647 (integer)
      authors => protected'Peller, T.; Gounand, I.; Altermatt, F.' (53 chars)
      title => protected'Resource flow network structure drives metaecosystem function' (61 chars)
      journal => protected'American Naturalist' (19 chars)
      year => protected2024 (integer)
      volume => protected204 (integer)
      issue => protected'6' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'546' (3 chars)
      otherpage => protected'560' (3 chars)
      categories => protected'degree distribution; ecosystem dynamics; nonlinear averaging; nutrient cycli
         ng; scaling up; spatial flows' (105 chars)
      description => protected'Nonliving resources frequently flow across ecosystem boundaries, which can y
         ield networks of spatially coupled ecosystems. Yet the significance of resou
         rce flows for ecosystem function has predominantly been understood by studyi
         ng two or a few coupled ecosystems, overlooking the broader resource flow ne
         twork and its spatial structure. Here, we investigate how the spatial struct
         ure of larger resource flow networks influences ecosystem function at metaec
         osystem scales by analyzing metaecosystem models with homogeneously versus h
         eterogeneously distributed resource flow networks but otherwise identical ch
         aracteristics. We show that metaecosystem function can differ strongly betwe
         en metaecosystems with contrasting resource flow networks. Differences in fu
         nction generally arise through the scaling up of nonlinear local processes i
         nteracting with spatial variation in local dynamics, the latter of which is 
         influenced by network structure. However, we find that neither network struc
         ture guarantees the greatest metaecosystem function. Rather, biotic (organis
         m traits) and abiotic (resource flow rates) properties interact with network
          structure to determine which yields greater metaecosystem function. Our fin
         dings suggest that the spatial structure of resource flow networks coupling 
         ecosystems can be a driver of ecosystem function at landscape scales. Furthe
         rmore, our study demonstrates how modifications to the structural, biotic, o
         r abiotic properties of metaecosystem networks can have nontrivial large-sca
         le effects on ecosystem function.' (1553 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0003-0147' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1086/732812' (14 chars)
      uid => protected33647 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected33647 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected33647 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   1 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=17985, pid=124)
      originalId => protected17985 (integer)
      authors => protected'Gounand, I.; Little, C. J.; Harvey, E.; Altermatt, 
         F.' (78 chars)
      title => protected'Cross-ecosystem carbon flows connecting ecosystems worldwide' (60 chars)
      journal => protected'Nature Communications' (21 chars)
      year => protected2018 (integer)
      volume => protected9 (integer)
      issue => protected'' (0 chars)
      startpage => protected'4825 (8 pp.)' (12 chars)
      otherpage => protected'' (0 chars)
      categories => protected'' (0 chars)
      description => protected'Ecosystems are widely interconnected by spatial flows of material, but the o
         verall importance of these flows relative to local ecosystem functioning rem
         ains unclear. Here we provide a quantitative synthesis on spatial flows of c
         arbon connecting ecosystems worldwide. Cross-ecosystem flows range over eigh
         t orders of magnitude, bringing between 10<sup>−3</sup> and 10<sup>5</sup>
          gC m<sup>−2</sup> year<sup>−1</sup> to recipient ecosystems. Magn
         itudes are similar to local fluxes in freshwater and benthic ecosystems, but
          two to three orders of magnitude lower in terrestrial systems, demonstratin
         g different dependencies on spatial flows among ecosystem types. The strong 
         spatial couplings also indicate that ecosystems are vulnerable to alteration
         s of cross-ecosystem flows. Thus, a reconsideration of ecosystem functioning
         , including a spatial perspective, is urgently needed.' (890 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'' (0 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1038/s41467-018-07238-2' (26 chars)
      uid => protected17985 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected17985 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected17985 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)
   2 => Snowflake\Publications\Domain\Model\Publicationprototypepersistent entity (uid=15911, pid=124)
      originalId => protected15911 (integer)
      authors => protected'Gounand,&nbsp;I.; Harvey,&nbsp;E.; Little,&nbsp;C.&nbsp;J.; Altermatt,&nbsp;
         F.' (78 chars)
      title => protected'Meta-Ecosystems 2.0: rooting the theory into the field' (54 chars)
      journal => protected'Trends in Ecology and Evolution' (31 chars)
      year => protected2018 (integer)
      volume => protected33 (integer)
      issue => protected'1' (1 chars)
      startpage => protected'36' (2 chars)
      otherpage => protected'46' (2 chars)
      categories => protected'' (0 chars)
      description => protected'The meta-ecosystem framework demonstrates the significance of among-ecosyste
         m spatial flows for ecosystem dynamics and has fostered a rich body of theor
         y. The high level of abstraction of the models, however, impedes application
         s to empirical systems. We argue that further understanding of spatial dynam
         ics in natural systems strongly depends on dense exchanges between field and
          theory. From empiricists, more and specific quantifications of spatial flow
         s are needed, defined by the major categories of organismal movement (disper
         sal, foraging, life-cycle, and migration). In parallel, the theoretical fram
         ework must account for the distinct spatial scales at which these naturally 
         common spatial flows occur. Integrating all levels of spatial connections am
         ong landscape elements will upgrade and unify landscape and meta-ecosystem e
         cology into a single framework for spatial ecology.' (887 chars)
      serialnumber => protected'0169-5347' (9 chars)
      doi => protected'10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.006' (26 chars)
      uid => protected15911 (integer)
      _localizedUid => protected15911 (integer)modified
      _languageUid => protectedNULL
      _versionedUid => protected15911 (integer)modified
      pid => protected124 (integer)